Allowed¶47

The Management v. Murugan.K

Madras HC20 Nov 2025WP(MD)/20894/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

no work no pay; wages for dismissal period; back wages after reinstatement; Section 33(C)(S) ID Act claim petition; Section 153 Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act revisional authority; fair price shop salesman; flying squad inspection shortage rice kerosene sugar; suspension and dismissal 23.11.2011; fresh enquiry exoneration; reinstatement 31.12.2013; superannuation retirement 31.10.2016; Labour Court Madurai CP 49/2017; writ of certiorari Article 226; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; single justice B. Pugalendhi; writ allowed impugned order set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Labour Court order in CP No. 49 of 2017 dated 13.5.2022 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP(MD) No. 15142 of 2022) closed. ¶47

The Management Vs Murugan.K — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned Labour Court order in CP No. 49 of 2017 dated 13.5.2022 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP(MD) No. 15142 of 2022) closed.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent employee, whose dismissal was set aside by the revisional authority and who was reinstated after exoneration in a fresh enquiry, is entitled to difference of salary/wages for the dismissal period (23.11.2011 to 31.12.2013) notwithstanding that he rendered no service during that period.

¶41

Court's answer

The respondent employee rendered no service pursuant to the order of dismissal; therefore, on the principle of 'no work, no pay', he is not entitled to any wages for the dismissal period.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), B. Pugalendhi J. — W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022, decided 20.11.2025. The Management of a co-operative marketing society challenged, under Article 226, a Labour Court, Madurai award (CP No. 49/2017, dt. 13.05.2022) made on the employee's claim under Section 33(C)(S) of the ID Act for difference of salary for 23.11.2011 to 31.12.2013, directing payment of Rs.2,38,979/- under the second head after adjusting subsistence allowance and denying leave wages. Facts: the employee, a salesman in the Society's Fair Price Shop, was suspended on 23.11.2011 after a flying squad found shortages of rice, kerosene and sugar; the first enquiry officer found the charges proved and he was dismissed on 23.11.2011; the revisional authority, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, set aside the dismissal and ordered a fresh enquiry; in the fresh enquiry the charges were found not proved, he was reinstated on 31.12.2013 and retired on superannuation on 31.10.2016. Holding: since the employee rendered no service pursuant to the order of dismissal, on the principle of 'no work, no pay' he is not entitled to wages for the dismissal period. Disposition: writ petition allowed; impugned Labour Court order set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022 and WMP(MD) No.15142 of 2022

¶7

The Management, MU 8 Usilampatti Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Societies Ltd., Thru its General Manager, Madurai Main Road, Usilampatti Post, Madurai District. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

K.Murugan ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Labour Court, Madurai made in Impugned Order in CP no. 49/2017 dated 13.5.2022 and quash the same as illegal.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Pethanaraj.C.G For R1 to R3 : Mr.G.Murugan

¶12

1/8

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Management of the Primary Agricultural Co-

¶17

operative Bank has filed this writ petition as against the order passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in CP No. 49 of 2017, dated 13.05.2022.

¶18

2.The said claim petition was filed by the respondent employee, under Section 33(C)(S) of the ID Act, claiming difference of salary for the period from 23.11.2011 to 31.12.2013. The Labour Court has allowed the claim petition, directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,38,979/- to the respondent, under the second head after adjusting the subsistence allowance, if any paid and has denied the other claim of leave wages etc., Aggrieved by that, the Management has preferred this writ petition.

¶19

2/8

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶22

3.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Management is that the respondent employee was suspended during the period from 23.11.2011 to 31.12.2013 for certain grave charges contemplated as against him. According to the learned counsel, the respondent employee was a salesman in a fair price shop run by the petitioner Society. There was an inspection in the said Fair Price Shop by a flying squad. The flying squad has found shortage of rice, kerosene and sugar in the Fair Price Shop and therefore, the flying squad has recommended for disciplinary proceedings as against the respondent/salesman. Accordingly, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated as against the respondent. Pending disciplinary proceedings, he was placed under suspension on 23.11.2011. The enquiry officer has found him guilty of the charges and submitted his report, based on which, the respondent employee was dismissed from service on proved charges on 23.11.2011. However, it has been set aside by the revisional authority, by order, dated 20.09.2013, directing the Management to conduct a fresh enquiry. In the subsequent fresh enquiry, the enquiry

¶23

3/8

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶26

officer has found that the charges have not been proved and therefore, he was reinstated into service on 31.12.2013. Pursuant to the first enquiry report, he was dismissed from service and that has been set aside by the Revisional Authority subsequent to the report of the second enquiry officer that the charges have not been proved. According to the learned counsel, this will not confer any right on the respondent claiming salary for the relevant period.

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of dismissal, dated 23.11.2011 has been set aside by the Revisional Authority, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, and the subsequent enquiry officer has found that the charges have not been proved. Therefore, the respondent employee was reinstated into service. Once he has been reinstated into service, he is entitled for the wages including the disputed period.

¶28

4/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶31

5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and

¶32

also perused the materials placed on record.

¶33

6.The respondent was a salesman in a Fair Price Shop

¶34

run by the petitioner’s Society. There was an inspection by a flying squad in that Fair Price Shop. Based on their inspection report, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated and a charge memo was issued as against the respondent/employee. The charges are as under:-

¶35

Charge 1: When the flying Squad inspected the Fair Price Shop, there was a shortage of 3 kgs of rice.

¶36

Charge 2: The employee has sold 6398 kgs of rice, 618 kgs of sugar, and 910 litres of kerosene in the open market.

¶37

The first enquiry officer found that the charges levelled as against the respondent employee have been proved. Based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service on 23.11.2011. However, the order of dismissal has been subsequently set aside by the revisional

¶38

authority, by its order, dated 20.09.2023 and the matter was remanded to the petitioner Management for fresh enquiry. During 5/8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶41

the second enquiry, the respondent employee was exonerated from the charges and the same has also been accepted by the Management. Accordingly, he was re-instated into service on 31.12.2013 and he was also allowed to retire from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016. The respondent has filed a claim petition, claiming difference of salary for his dismissal period on the ground that the order of dismissal was set aside by the revisional authority, based on which, he was also reinstated into service and served till his retirement. The claim petition was allowed by the Labour Court. The petitioner Management has attacked the order of the Labour Court that during the relevant period, the respondent employee has not rendered any service and therefore he is not entitled for wages.

¶42

7.This Court is of the view that the respondent employee has not rendered any service, pursuant to the order of dismissal and on the principles of ''no work, no pay'', he is not entitled for any wages for the dismissal period.

¶43

6/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶46

8.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The

¶47

impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in CP No. 49 of 2017, dated 13.5.2022 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

20.11.2025

¶49

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No vrn

¶50

7/8

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P(MD)No.20894 of 2022

¶53

B.PUGALENDHI, J.